How much should players be expected to actively contribute to the group's dynamics?

[NewJeffCT]

It's really a matter of playing to each player's strengths and avoiding their weaknesses.

My group had a couple of guys that just like showing up, hanging out and rolling dice. However, we have another guy that really gets into his character and enjoys doing creative things in game, be it in combat or out of combat. And, we have a couple of other guys that are cerebral players who try to do the smart thing in character, but are not quite into it like the creative guy.

The two guys that mostly show up don't like being the centers of attention too often, and I try not to put them in situations where they need to do a lot of role playing and/or show leadership. They have their 15 minutes of fame each session, but they don't need or want more. They'll have some input on what to do, but are never forceful about their opinions.

However, I also try to make sure that the creative guy and the others will have something to solve, or a situation where he can come up with a different idea on how to solve a problem. (i.e., they came up with a way I had not expected when attacking a goblin stronghold, but I ran with it and the players ended up doing well despite hitting the tough encounters first because they came up from behind and underneath...) So, those guys generally come up with the ideas and show the leadership, and I try to come up with situations that allow them to shine.

 

[Rel]

It's really a matter of playing to each player's strengths and avoiding their weaknesses.

My group had a couple of guys that just like showing up, hanging out and rolling dice. However, we have another guy that really gets into his character and enjoys doing creative things in game, be it in combat or out of combat. And, we have a couple of other guys that are cerebral players who try to do the smart thing in character, but are not quite into it like the creative guy.

The two guys that mostly show up don't like being the centers of attention too often, and I try not to put them in situations where they need to do a lot of role playing and/or show leadership. They have their 15 minutes of fame each session, but they don't need or want more. They'll have some input on what to do, but are never forceful about their opinions.

However, I also try to make sure that the creative guy and the others will have something to solve, or a situation where he can come up with a different idea on how to solve a problem. (i.e., they came up with a way I had not expected when attacking a goblin stronghold, but I ran with it and the players ended up doing well despite hitting the tough encounters first because they came up from behind and underneath...) So, those guys generally come up with the ideas and show the leadership, and I try to come up with situations that allow them to shine.

These are all good examples of what I think is most important when running an ongoing campaign: Know your players.

Again, I strongly recommend reading the works of Robin Laws. If not Good Gamemastering then read his stuff in either the 3.5 DMG2 or the 4.0 DMG about player types and their "emotional kicks". Probably the single best day in my improvement as a GM was when we sat down as a group and each player could point to one or two of the player types and say, "That (or those) describe me best."

Before that I was making the players happy some of the time by accident. Now I make the players happy most of the time on purpose.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Good Gamemastering by Robin Laws is out of print, but can still be found at [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Robins-Laws-Good-Game-Mastering/dp/1556346298/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296935377&sr=8-2"]Amazon.com[/ame] or at [ame="http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/"]pdf format[/ame] at Steve Jackson Games.

It's a great book for GM's who want to improve their skills.